Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

North Korea Vows to Nuke U.S.A.

Posted Mar 14, '13 at 4:50am

partydevil

partydevil

5,090 posts

It's common knowledge that the US has a NFU policy on Nuclear Weapons;

it's also known that the usa is the only country that had used a nuke against innocent people.
i can't trust a nation on this field when they have done such a thing.

SK is under the US' nuclear umbrella. Attacking SK is equivalent to directly attacking the US.

hahahahahaha. are you seriously here? hahaha.

so this is how/why the usa sticks their nose in all the business they are not part of.
saying that if half the world is attacked then you automatically attack the usa aswell? thats retarded. even if it's true, it's still retarded.

Because the US allways hides behind the UN. /sarcasm

it try's to.

I like how you just sling out anti-American mud and hope something sticks. ^^

i throw out the mud to cover the loving-usa bs that the americans are spreading out over the world.

see it as a theist-atheist thing.
as a theist try's to glorify it's believe. then many atheists blast it back in their face.
i do the same whit the usa. you want to glorify the usa. but all it actually is, is a young pubertal country. whit only war and violence. and beside california there is nothing good coming out of your country.

 

Posted Mar 14, '13 at 6:43am

Masterforger

Masterforger

1,633 posts

it's also known that the usa is the only country that had used a nuke against innocent people.
i can't trust a nation on this field when they have done such a thing.

Despite being an immoral attack, they weighed the fact they would lose at least two million men trying to beat Japan in submission, and so they opted for an easier decision.

 

Posted Mar 14, '13 at 10:39am

redfan45

redfan45

202 posts

Despite being an immoral attack, they weighed the fact they would lose at least two million men trying to beat Japan in submission, and so they opted for an easier decision.

That and the Russians were quickly coming in from Siberia and China and beating the Japanese back fast (one of those things you don't get to learn about a lot in American history class). The Americans wouldn't want to lose the credit of beating the Japanese for good, so they used their brand new weapon.
Russians did a lot in WW2, and don't get the credit.

 

Posted Mar 14, '13 at 11:25am

partydevil

partydevil

5,090 posts

Despite being an immoral attack, they weighed the fact they would lose at least two million men trying to beat Japan in submission, and so they opted for an easier decision.

so they can "justify" it this way the next time again.
if we all use this logic then we would all be dead already.

you killed innocents whit that attack. not people that chooses to die in the war.
you are/were the 9/11 for them. but then a thousand times bigger.

 

Posted Mar 14, '13 at 2:30pm

redfan45

redfan45

202 posts

They did similar things to the Germans, the Americans and British fire bombed the hell out of Dresden killing thousands.
Big big amount of German civilian causalities by allied forced at the end of the war and after too.

 

Posted Mar 14, '13 at 2:42pm

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

8,238 posts

I'm just going to throw this out there...

In regards to the "Immoral attack" done by the U.S. on Japan..the U.S. actually warned the Japanese people about the attack so that their lives could be spared. The purpose of the nuke was not to kill innocent lives..but to demonstrate the powers the U.S. was capable of

America warned citizens

Other leaflet examples

 

Posted Mar 14, '13 at 3:23pm

Masterforger

Masterforger

1,633 posts

so they can "justify" it this way the next time again.
if we all use this logic then we would all be dead already.

you killed innocents whit that attack. not people that chooses to die in the war.
you are/were the 9/11 for them. but then a thousand times bigger.

A: Just because I justify an American war decision does not make me American. Nice going, hotshot.
B: The President was presented with the facts that he would lose at least two million men, not to mention civilian casualties would actually be bigger than an attack on their key supply cities (Note that they did not attack Osaka or Tokyo)
C: America knew that if they did not crush the Japanese, there would be an extended and hideously bloody war. The Japanese were a highly honorable people, and their military was known for 'sparing civilian honor' by killing civilians. The military ran on a mock-Bushido code, with the idea of fighting to the last empty cartridge being considered an honorable death. Combine this with the 9-million strong military, all willing to hold their position and fight, and millions of lives of soldiers and civilians would be lost.
Not to mention even after the bombs were dropped, many of the generals considered their loss dishonorable and committed suicide. If these men were willing to kill themselves after such a loss, how do you think they would defend their country? With a huge amount of blood spilled on the turf of Japan.

 

Posted Mar 14, '13 at 6:36pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,090 posts

i have a problem whit your point B.
the cost of 2 million lives should be choosen. if we all just drop a huge bomb on every place we dont like because it's more easy then having a war then we all are dead.
thats not a way to fight. i understand the generals to suicide after such weak attack that you can't defend against. the japanese had honor during a fight. and get beaten by monkey's whit a huge gun... -.-' they are responsible for their man. and if they die in such way, then he has failed his duty.

 

Posted Mar 14, '13 at 7:15pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,090 posts

@pang tong
that warning is from after hiroshima
and nice thye gave a warning 30 mins befor the bomb. be seriously would that have cared? they knew of the after effects. and that after 25mins the alarms stop and people come out 5 mins to soon isn't going to help either. a bit better communication could be done there.
any japan was almost out of oil and the sea blockade was effective enough.
japan was already defeated and they tryed to surrender to russia. who refused because it had agreed whit the usa to get alot of land in east asia after japan and china were gone. these agreements were made in the yalta conference.

the bomb was unnecessary.

 

Posted Mar 14, '13 at 7:38pm

Maverick4

Maverick4

3,707 posts

it's also known that the usa is the only country that had used a nuke against innocent people.
i can't trust a nation on this field when they have done such a thing.

1) Japan was actively training their own citizens to be used to repel a potential allied invasion. They weren't as innocent as you make them out to be.

2) Japan themselves murderedfar more noncombatants and prisoners of war than the allies did.

3) The alternative to Fat Man and Little Boy was an all out invasion of Japan. Given the IJA's proven record of fighting to the last man, an exponentially greater number of lives, on all sides, would have been lost in an invasion like Operation Overlord. Allied estimates run over 1 million Americans alone would die simply taking over the main islands.

4) It's also important to note that no one in the world really knew the true powers of atomic weaponry. The US and the USSR didn't begin to understand the affects and persistence of radioactive fallout until subsequent tests in the 50s and 60s.

All in all, dropping the bombs was the best descision because, ultimately, it was the lesser of all evils. In an ideal situation, there never would have been any need to drop the bombs in the first place; WWII never would have occurred.

are you seriously here?

Yes, I am "seriously" here as I am occupying a specific point in time and space.

so this is how/why the usa sticks their nose in all the business they are not part of.
saying that if half the world is attacked then you automatically attack the usa aswell? thats retarded. even if it's true, it's still retarded.

Perhaps you ough to fully research something before you pass erroneous judgement on it. The purpose of such an agreement between SK, Japan, and the US serves to provide regional stability. I'm sure you aggree when I say that nuclear proliferation is a bad thing. And the aggreement works to stop nuclear proliferation: the US provides for the defense of SK and Japan, and SK and Japan don't pursue nuclear weaponry. Its a win-win for everyone.

it try's to.

If it trys and fails, it doesn't Not that it ever did to begin with. So whats your point, exactly? Or is this as worthless as everybing else you've so far said?

see it as a theist-atheist thing.
as a theist try's to glorify it's believe. then many atheists blast it back in their face.
i do the same whit the usa. you want to glorify the usa. but all it actually is, is a young pubertal country. whit only war and violence. and beside california there is nothing good coming out of your country.

I'll just nod and pretend that this is relevant and makes sense, so as to not hurt your feelings.

i have a problem whit your point B.
the cost of 2 million lives should be choosen. if we all just drop a huge bomb on every place we dont like because it's more easy then having a war then we all are dead.
thats not a way to fight. i understand the generals to suicide after such weak attack that you can't defend against. the japanese had honor during a fight. and get beaten by monkey's whit a huge gun... -.-' they are responsible for their man. and if they die in such way, then he has failed his duty.

This would be laughable if you weren't so serious. I'll address the only coherent point you make by pointing out your blatant hyprocrisy: You slam the US for killing a few people with a bomb, then openly state that the best choice is the annihilation of an entire generation in two countries and the inevitable loss of more lives. Your gringophobia seems to be clouding your judgement.

 
Reply to North Korea Vows to Nuke U.S.A.

You must be logged in to post a reply!